Senate Candidate Wants to Ban Polling

Masker writes "This is just too funny. Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois, who is running against Democrat Barack Obama, wants to ban political polling for 'a certain period' before the election, since such polls are 'manipulative and degrading and damaging to our political system.' Could his opinion be influenced by a recent poll that shows Keyes trails by 45 percentage points behind Obama?" Could be. But it could also be influenced by the fact that polls are often wrong; they influence how people vote (people are less likely to vote for someone who "doesn't have a chance"), and polls get reported on more than issues, which can't be good for anyone except the pollsters and whoever happens to be leading the polls.

Comments

receiving the calls

[alatesystems]

I don't know about the rest of you, but I love it when the pollsters call me up and I get to give my opinion and answer good and bad about $CANDIDATE.

Although, I haven't gotten any calls since I moved to VoIP(Packet8), so I don't know if they haven't been able to get my number or something, but I don't think the Do Not Call List applies to political candidates. This might be different though because supposedly polls don't work FOR candidates but rather provide an "objective" view.

Chris

Re:receiving the calls

[QuantumG]

I had a pollster call up the other day, but before they would take my many opinions they asked me my post code to confirm I was from the right area, I wasn't. Somehow I think they were doing a survey of how many people actually know what the name of their electorate is.

Re:receiving the calls

[Zeinfeld]

had a pollster call up the other day, but before they would take my many opinions they asked me my post code to confirm I was from the right area, I wasn't. Somehow I think they were doing a survey of how many people actually know what the name of their electorate is.

They use this to determine whether you are a likely voter. The theory goes that people who know their candidate and polling station are more likely to vote than those who do not. Elections are determined mostly by turnout.

As several people have been pointing out in the blogosphere, this works a lot lot better a week before the poll than two months. So the recent polls based on a likely voter model that weighted Republicans 40% vs 33% for Democrats are probably irrelevant, particularly since many voters will not even have received their notice of poll yet to tell them where the place is.

Comming up to the vote expect the correction to cancel itself out, this will eroneously show Bush slipping comming up to election day. In 2000 Bush lost the popular vote even though the polls showed him an average of 5% ahead the day before and only two polls out of 19 showed Gore ahead.

That said, although the polls are often wrong they are very rarely so wrong as to give Keyes a chance of beating Obama. Keyes has been abandonded by many in his own party because he is a complete whack job.

And?

[QuantumG]

influence how people vote

Isn't it the duty of every good citizen to try to influence how others vote? What are we supposed to do, lock ourselves in a political cage for 6 months before every election so as not to influence other voters? Cool, we can all go to the polls with no idea what the issues are we're voting for. Oh wait, I forgot, this is bipartisan politics, there are no issues.

Re:And?

[Unordained]

... it's bipartisan politics because we let it be. When I get polled, the questions are: which of "the two" (Bush/Kerry) are you planning on voting for, and why (like him/dislike opponent/issues) ... there's no room for saying that I -will- vote for a third candidate, nor to say that I'd rather vote for a third candidate.

With polls like that, no wonder everyone thinks the "independent candidates" are pointless to vote for -- we don't think they have a chance because we don't know how not-alone we are in our opinion, and our system makes our votes "useless" if not voting for the top two candidates.

If we had a smarter voting system, polls might make less sense -- your decision to vote for a candidate wouldn't have a reason to be influenced by who had the best chance of winning among your personal "okay" list. Rather than banning them (which is stupid and wrong) let's make them irrelevant?

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

You miss the question here, it isn't about whether people should try to persuade others or not to vote in a certain way, it is a matter of whether people should be voting for something because "5 out of 6 Pepsi drinkers prefer candidate X."

Some of us have an opinion that voting for something based on its popularity is damaging to the political system. We have the opinion that people should vote on the merits of the candidates or resolution being proposed.

Too bad our electoral system doesn't support real choice.

Re:And?

[4of12]

Isn't it the duty of every good citizen to try to influence how others vote?

Maybe every politician, too?

Re:And?

[Anonymous Coward]

Influencing people by debating the issues is one thing. Influencing by saying "65% believe X" is quite another, given the degree to which these polls can be manipulated. A friend of mine is a Ph.D. social psych researcher, and polling is one of his specialties...and he told me he can get up to a 40% variance in results, just by changing the order of the questions.

polls are often wrong?

[kootch]

I don't understand why that link was for "polls are often wrong" when the first 2 paragraphs of the story it linked to specifically say:

"A review of the 159 Governor and U.S. Senate polls reported by the media in 2002 shows a very good performance for most polling organizations. The average candidate error for all polls was 2.4 percentage points. 84% of the polls differed from the election outcome by less than their theoretical margin of error."

I'm confused.

Re:polls are often wrong?

[Bootsy Collins]

I'm confused.

I don't think it's anything deep -- just that "often" is not the same as "usually". If polls are wrong a sixth of the time, it's not crazy to call that "often". (I haven't read the article, so I don't know whether it says that or not -- I just took 100% minus your quoted figure of 84% correct. But it's irrelevant to this comment)

Re:polls are often wrong?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

In particular, an awful lot of Senator and Governor races are basically non-races--anyone could have predicted the outcome without any polls at all. We look to the polls only when its not already obvious who's going to win--and maybe that's the 16% of the time. On the other hand, more polls are probably taken in closer races, so maybe the 16% is actually a really great figure. That article just doesn't tell us enough information. On electoral-vote.com they listed the major polls from the 2000 election, and only two out of 10 or so predicted Al Gore would win the popular vote.

Re:polls are often wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

On electoral-vote.com they listed the major polls from the 2000 election, and only two out of 10 or so predicted Al Gore would win the popular vote.

Al Gore didn't even win the popular vote by the margin of error of the official polls. That election would have counted under the "polls got it right" column.

Re:polls are often wrong?

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Not all the polls managed to get within the margin of error.

Re:polls are often wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't matter if polls are right or wrong. The fact is that 79% of people love polls.

Re:polls are often wrong?

[jhoffoss]

Polls are an art, not a science. There's an article on page B1 (cover of the Marketplace section) of today's WSJ.

As example (and the fuel for the article I mention, as well, perhaps, as the article linked) is the fact that last week, "Gallup Organization had President Bush up by 13 percentage points, while the Pew Research Center had him and Sen. John Kerry dead even."

The article goes on to discuss how poll results are adjusted to represent even precentages of economic, educational, gender, age, and sometimes political affiliation, demographics. What that means: if only 4% of respondents are age 18-24, and it should be 6%, the results from that group will be increased by 50%.

This becomes an issue, as the article points out, because as much as 3% of the population whom are aged 18-30 are missed because they do not have land-lines, and cellular phones are not polled. But when they are adjusted by the means I mentioned, the views of those [typically more urban] population are not necessarilly represented.

In addition to all of this, as I mentioned, these polls are sometimes adjusted based on party representation. But if individuals being polled are Independent, but will vote for Bush, they have a tendency to call themselves Republican, which skews those numbers. Note that not all polling organizations adjust in this manner.

The last thing that can throw polls off is that 45% of the responses are thrown out immediately, based on their "liklihood to vote", which is arbitrarily decided with questions like "How likely are you to vote in November? Do you vote Always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely, or Never?" and on and on.

this + electronic voting

[jafuser]

Combine this with electronic voting with no paper trails, and you have a great way to rig an election, since nobody has any idea roughly how it should have come out to even contest the validity of the electronic votes.

Re:this + electronic voting

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Umm...right, so maybe we should just have paper trails and decide whatever we want on the unrelated polling issue? The 2002 Georgia election polls all were surprised, but no one managed to contest the elections there, so I don't think the polls buy you anything in terms of legitimacy. If you've been hearing some of the discussions over cell phones and renormalizing political parties in polls, you might not have such faith in them yourself.

Re:this + electronic voting

[eraserewind]

Have to say I disagree. You can always take a series of polls, and publish after the election result if you are concerned about it's validity. Polls distract from the real issues in an election, and journalists focus on asking candidates what are they going to do about their poll figures rather than what they are going to do about . Politicians focus on saying that they are clearly winning, and so don't bother with the other guy. This kind of meta-politics has no real value at all except to divert attention.

Re:this + electronic voting

[Anonymous Coward]

Combine this with electronic voting with no paper trails, and you have a great way to rig an election

Or you could just get the Supreme Court to declare you the winner like Bush.

Re:this + electronic voting

[_iris]

Perhaps we should allow polling but ban reporting of it for a short period before the elections?

Re:this + electronic voting

[zCyl]

Combine this with electronic voting with no paper trails, and you have a great way to rig an election, since nobody has any idea roughly how it should have come out to even contest the validity of the electronic votes.

The solution to this is exit polling, not random calling of households. It makes more sense to poll the people who actually show up if you're trying to evaluate the accuracy of an election. Then you will get a closer sampling to the real population being considered.

This is the way it's done in France

[xlv]

If I remember correctly, that's the way it's done in France for a few days (a week?) before the election.

What's even more important in fact, is that the media is not allowed to report on the campaigns at all during that time, there's a complete black out during which voters are supposed to make up their minds, analyzing the merits of each candidate.

Re:This is the way it's done in France

[sfjoe]

That sounds like a really bad idea. That way, the only news will be about the incumbent doing newsworthy things in the course of their duties.
An unethical, conniving, underhanded pol would be declaring two terror alerts every single day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Re:This is the way it's done in France

[xlv]

No, the incumbant is not on TV at that time as he's part of the black out.

In fact, there's really no need to see the president every day and looking at Bush's vacation time in Texas, the president doesn't even need to be in office most of the time...

Re:This is the way it's done in France

[Procrastin8er]

Hmm would you feel the same way if the incumbent was a lying, flip-flopping, elitist sleaze ball. Of course things may be different in that case, since the lying, flip-flopping, elitist probably spent the last 20 years in the Senate doing nothing, so why should we think that an election blackout would motivate him to actually do something.

Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois

It should be noted that Alan Keyes isn't FROM Illinois, he is merely running in the Senate race. I don't think that in itself is bad, but it is probably one of the many reasons he is trailing in the polls.

I seem to remember Keyes once saying that people from out-of-state SHOULDN'T run for a state office, but I can't find that quote now, so maybe I'm just spreading nasty rumors. But it's ok, because I fufilled my duties.

So Alan Keyes, another Republican who wants to control things. There was once a day when Republicans were about NOT controlling things, but that time is long gone.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[ophix]

i think you missed the memo. keyes is a politician... that sort of implies he wants to control things.

thats what politicians do... enact legislation to raise their pay/retirement/benefits and screw over everyone else except the rich. this is true for both the republican AND the democratic party, they just cater to differing subsets of the rich. any candidate running in this important of an election is in someone's pocket. such is life.

that being said i am from illinois and am completely against someone running for an office when they do not even live in the area the office is supposed to serve.... but i also think that all politicians should be limited to a single term except in extenuating(sp?) circumstances.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Quarters]

A few years back Alan Keyes was quite vocal in his claims that Hillary Clinton shouldn't have been allowed to run in the NY senate race since she had just purchased a house there. Of course she was a strong Democrat going up against a very week Republican, but that probably didn't have anything to do with it...(ha!)

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

and another fact she was not asked to come there, people asked keys to go to illanos

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[krymsin01]

Obviously someone wanted her there, after all she won?

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Really? Out of the millions of people in NYC, you are saying *nobody* asked her to come there?

If that was true she wouldn't have won the election.

Come on, people were talking about it for a year before the election.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[mzs]

I am from IL and I here is an example of what Alan Keyes is about:

Separation of Church and State? What is that?

Stances like this are why he will lose the election here. I am sure that Republicans like Jim Thompson are very much beside themselves about it actually. They can look at this as illustrating how Illinoisans want more moderate Republicans and Keyes' royal trouncing will help shift the Republican agenda in IL back to where it can be palatable to the majority again. Too bad for the RNC which was so dead set on a candidate like Keyes that they forgot to actually rally behind one that the majority would accept...

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[dpilot]

Like Hillary or not, like Bill or not,
at least Bill Clinton, in a noteworthy fashion, lives in New York. Some might say 'notorious fashion,' but nonetheless he gives the very visible appearance of being a New York resident.

Of course most Senators need to spend most of their time in Washington. I have no idea where Hillary spends her time when she's not there.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

*sigh* This is a huge pet peeve of mine...

Separation of church and state:

• Is not in the constitution (as most people think)
• Does not mean nobody can have religion
• Even if their in public office
• Is *not* about removing religious symbols from public property

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not "Congress shall tear down religious symbols wherever it may annoy citizens."

Allowing a court house to have the 10 commandments in front of it is hardly passing a law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is called "Freedom of Religion" people. The right to actually have a religion.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

Crap...

s/their/they're/g

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even looking at the term "separation of church and state", last time I looked "church" and "state" are both institutions. That's much different than saying "separation of faith and state" or "separation of church and politics" or whatever.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Keyes is such a fucking idiot. He and Alan Combes used to have a late night AM radio talk show together back in the mid to late 1990s before anyone knew who the hell either of them were. They're both total douchebags, but Keyes was always coming out of left field and saying the most bizarre things. He always gave the impression that he was the kind of guy who would force children into labor camps, legalize beating your wife and put teen mothers and women who've had abortions into prison. He is a very unlikable, unreasonable, over-the-top uber-conservative. I consider myself a libertarian but was very much a conservative (at least, fiscally) at the time (I was 19/20) but he is such a nut-case. In fact, Keyes always struck me as the kind of hateful prick who would encourage hanging black people lynch-mob style (he's black, by the way).

Think about a skinnier, darker-skinned Jerry Falwell. That's exactly what Keyes is.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Yes, but I still say "yeah, right". The House just passed law making it illegal for courts below the U.S. Supreme Court to hear cases pertaining to the removal of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[strike2867]

I'm also from IL, and I'm glad he has no chance. I will even be doing my part to vote against him. A month ago he talked of corruption in IL. Absolutely nothing backing it up, just more fear mongering. There is a good reason he is down so much. Some other polls suggest that he may be down less than 45 though, so please if you're in IL make sure he has no chance.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[N3WBI3]

NY already had a candidate for the Senate when Hillary moved to NY. She was a Democrat from down state who probablly would have won just as easily as Hillary..

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[TXG1112]

The reasoning is right there in your post.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

What this means is that Government (and it's all of its various branches) can not even appear to prefer one religion over another. This includes allowing any religious displays. How would you like passages from the Koran in Arabic posted in the courtroom where you were on trial? (or for the PC among us, a religion different from your own) What if your local mayor decided to plant a giant gold Buddha on the front lawn of town hall? That would be seen as a massive waste of tax money, and rightly so.

I'd like to point out the God isn't mentioned in our constitution either. Our founders were mostly influenced by enlightenment philosophy.

I recommend you have look at The Jefferson Bible Where he specifically eliminates all supernatural events, and considers Jesus a philosopher, not god.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Procrastin8er]

Re: Your Sig, I don't feel sorry for the President. He is a strong leader, and I am proud to have him as a president. Now I am embarassed by John Kerry, because I am from Massachusetts, even though I didn't vote for him, I do feel somewhat responsible for him sleazing his way around the country. If he does get elected, I will be the first person from Massachusetts to formaly apologize to the rest of the states. Oh by the way, Al Gore's tantrum speeches are pretty embarassing also,

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

What this means is that Government (and it's all of its various branches) can not even appear to prefer one religion over another.

Actually, I thought it was pretty clearly stated that it means congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Appearing to believe in a religion is a far cry from passing laws enforcing it. Would you say that if Joe Liberman were elected that he couldn't wear a yamaka?

FWIW, I consider myself to be agnostic, so the 10 comandments aren't part of my belief system. But they don't give me the impression that my right to practice any religion I want is being oppressed (including the right to not practice *any* religion).

I recommend you have look at The Jefferson Bible Where he specifically eliminates all supernatural events, and considers Jesus a philosopher, not god.

With all due respect to Mr. Jefferson, he was not the only person involved in the creation of this nation. He was an idealist (and a hypocrite, but that's neither here nor there) and a great statesman. But his word is not law.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[hal9000]

When Pat Buchanan suggested on a 2000 Fox News broadcast that Keyes go to NY to challenge Clinton for senate, Alan Keyes responded thusly,

I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it.

Republicans, conservatives, are you embarassed by this guy or what?

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[ImaLamer]

It should also be noted that Alan Keyes thinks it would be a good idea to repeal the 17th Amendment.

This, for those who don't know, would make the state legislature elect (U.S.) Senators instead of the people. Why? Likely because he is behind in the polls also.

But this seems like a bad idea to me for a number of reasons:

I may like Republicans to run my state, but not the U.S. Congress. Makes it hard to have it both ways.
People already feel under represented, this would make it worse.
Puts Senate choices and debate behind closed doors (I believe)

If I wasn't so tired, I'd have more for you.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[TXG1112]

>"Appearing to believe in a religion is a far cry from passing laws enforcing it."

I will have to respectfully disagree with this idea. While I agree that it is not the same thing, I will not say that it "is a far cry" from it. Some will cry the "Slippery Slope is a fallacy" argument, however in this case, it isn't. One can already see the results of this slippery slope in our society, as evidenced by the recent Congressional vote on the Pledge of Allegiance. If a public religious display has no appearance of authority, why do people feel the need to place them in front governmental locations? The people that feel strongly about these issues should put them up in front of their own houses. If that isn't good enough, then it is obvious that they are trying to use their office as a bully pulpit.

Liberman is free to display his personal religious ornamentation, because we are free to practice religion as we see fit. He is not allowed to inscribe passages from the Torah on his senate seat. There is as you say "a far cry" from an individual displaying their preference and using their power of office to promote that preference.

You are right that Jefferson is not the final word on our nations founding, however I like to point out his bible to stave off the notion that the USA was founded as a Christian nation. Many other founding fathers, notably Franklin and Washington, were not strictly speaking Christian.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[eyeball]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" not "Congress shall tear down religious symbols wherever it may annoy citizens."

Allowing a court house to have the 10 commandments in front of it is hardly passing a law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is called "Freedom of Religion" people. The right to actually have a religion.

Sure putting a 10 commandments in front of a court isn't passing a law, but it's dangerously close. Even if the 10 commandments aren't used in court, is implies an endorsement of one particular set of religious laws by our court and our laws of justice. It subtly tells Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus that while you're here, you're going to be judged by christians, and therefore you're at a disadvantage. It's intimidating.

Let's turn the situation around. Atzanteol, if you found yourself in a part of the country where a mayor somehow happened to be a liberal (not fundamentalist) Muslim, and you got a speeding ticket. On your way into the courthouse you passed a big decorative plaque that simply listed Muslim laws. What would you think? How would you feel?

Besides, nowhere in the bible can I find anything that says "any country needs to have the 10 commandments out in front of a courthouse." I never understood how putting the 10 commandments in a public courthouse could be equated to practicing freedom of religion.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your emphasis does not preserve one of the facets of the statement well.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The Church of England is an establishment of religion.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

That is true, but I'm just trying to point out the AC's lies.

Clinton was still asked to move to NYC and run in the senate race. It's part of a larger strategy to give her experience, have her show some leadership in the senate and get her name out, probably in preparation for the 2008 or 2012 presidential race.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[stinerman]

The mixing of government and religion can be a threat to free government, even if no one is forced to participate.... When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.

-- Harry Blackmun, former Supreme Court Justice

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

How I 'feel' or what I 'think' are very different from how I am treated. What if I get that same speeding ticket in Harlem, and on the way to the courthouse I see all black people, and a statue of Malcolm X? I am white. Wouldn't I be called a racist if I demanded that blacks not run courts and that Malcolm X has no place in government?

This issue always comes down to "this makes me feel uncomfortable." Well tough. There is a hell of a lot more than the 10 commandments in this world that will make you feel uncomfortable. The government does not exist to ensure you are comfortable.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I like how you criticize me, but fail to criticize the message.

Do you work for Bush?

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like how Hillary Clinton isn't from New York and she just ran (and won) as Senator from New York?

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

Some will cry the "Slippery Slope is a fallacy" argument, however in this case, it isn't.

Ahh, but it is. Do we want to be in the business of making things illegal because somebody believes there is a possibility it could lead to something else? What you're proposing is that not only should congress not pass laws against/for religion, but that it should also be restrained from having *anything at all* to do with individual religions. This would include tax breaks for religious charities, and other services that religions do provide. I'm not sure if we want to go that route. Religion in society plays a very important role, whether you believe it or like it or not. I don't think the government can just ignore that.

If a public religious display has no appearance of authority, why do people feel the need to place them in front governmental locations?

Well, if you're Christian and building a court-house, you may be inspired by your upbringing. In your mind you think of all that exemplifies a court house, law, etc. And you think of the 'original 10 laws' given by your God. Seems pretty natural to me (even as a non-christian).

I aknowledge your 'individual' vs. 'using power of office' differences. But I think what we differ on is whether something as benign as the 10 commandments on a court-house steps is indeed an over-reach of ones power in office. It declares no laws, changes no rules in society, imparts no taxes, and enforces no fines. I can feel free to disagree with them (and I do with several), and receive no punishment. I can kiss my neighbors wife on Sunday while taking the lords name in vain and chanting a pagan prayer on the steps of the court-house!

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[NonSequor]

You're just quibbling on the point of separation of church and state not being in the Constitution. While it is true in a technical sense, Article V of the Constitution states that amendments to the Constitution are to be treated as though they were part of the Constitution itself.

I agree with the rest of your points to an extent though.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[TXG1112]

Well, if you're Christian and building a court-house, you may be inspired by your upbringing. In your mind you think of all that exemplifies a court house, law, etc. And you think of the 'original 10 laws' given by your God. Seems pretty natural to me (even as a non-christian).

Well as a (nominal) christian it seems very unnatural to me. I am not inspired by a christian architects upbringing, nor should the American Taxpayer be required to support his religious leanings. We have a symbol for justice, and she is blind for a reason. Our courts uphold the laws of man, not god, and that's how I would like to keep it.

To be honest with you, I have considered taking up the position of eliminating the tax breaks that religions get on the grounds that giving them requires the Government to determine what is a religion vs. what is a cult. This makes the US Government the de facto and de jure arbiter of what religion is and is not, which to my mind directly contradicts the letter and spirit of the constitution. While religion plays an important societal role, it is not the governments job to promote it.

As you correctly point out there are many positive contributions that religious organizations provide, making this a hard idea to sell.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

You're just quibbling on the point of separation of church and state not being in the Constitution. While it is true in a technical sense, Article V of the Constitution states that amendments to the Constitution are to be treated as though they were part of the Constitution itself.

Umn. I didn't claim otherwise. That's what I meant by "in the constitution." The bit I quoted "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is part of the first amendment.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.

This guy doesn't seem to understand basic Christian doctrine. God loves everyone (even people that don't believe in Him). Asserting that God exists is not the same as asserting that God prefers believers over non-believers.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[NonSequor]

Yes, but it's a point that carries no significance. If the Constitution didn't state that all amendments "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution" your point would be relevent to this discussion. However, as it stands, saying that the separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution only introduces an unneccessary distinction. Whether you interpret "the Constitution" to mean "the Constitution as originally written" or "the Constitution and all of its ratified amendments" is just a matter of semantics.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, when he said that, I think when he said separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, he meant the actual phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. He made a distinction between that and the establishment clause of the first amendment.

The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution or any of the amendments. It's from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a minister in response to a letter the minister wrote because he was concerned that the government would force his church to observe certain holidays.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

Bingo. This is exactly what I meant.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[w3rzr0b0t5]

I'm a GOP block captain, so maybe I do work for Bush. It's not compensated work. It's the same grassroots stuff we've been good at for decades.

Look, I don't like the Keyes race either, although I love Allen Keyes. He's having to say a bunch of stupid things, becoming a caricature of himself in the process, and go back on many things he's said in the past. He definitely DID give HC hell for running in NY as a carpetbagger. It was going to be an embarrassment not to have a viable Illinois Senate candidate, and Ditka wouldn't run. And I think I know why, they would have run that video of him grabbing his crotch over and over and over and over. Not Senatorial.

Perhaps I was a little upset in my last response. I apologize. But you received huge moderation points for pointing out that you don't like the fact that Republicans want to control things. Which could only happen on /.

THEY ALL WANT TO CONTROL THINGS. They are POLITICIANS. My chief counsel is somewhere to the left of Karl freakin' Marx and even he agrees with me. Perhaps they were a little MIFFED that the Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate for 40 YEARS STRAIGHT. 40 YEARS, with big media backing? It's intellectually dishonest in the extreme for you to imply that Democrats don't want to be running the show.

Why would you ever want to vote for a politician who didn't want his party to be in control anyway? What other way is there for you to get your interests represented and passed as law? I didn't reply to your point because I just fail to understand it.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Is not in the constitution (as most people think)

You are either insane or ignorant. The public property may not be used to promote or deny any religious or moral viewpoint. The separation of church and state is absolute. It was the Baptists and other religious groups who were considered illegal separatists and who fought for this absolute separation. Previous allowances for usage of public property for religious reasons were done so without opposition due to cultural homogeny. Simply because previous generations were able to get away with violating law since no one cared, does not make it legal.

The Anti-Federalists were the ones who fought hardest for this. Would my taxes be used for the upkeep of these postings on public property? What about the economic value of the space being used by the posting? Do my taxes not pay for this also? If I am an athiest, then how is this legally different from my taxes being used to pay a priest's salary?

As cultural hemogeny disentigrates due to immigration and other factors, you will have to conform to the law in order to respect the rights of minority views. What authority do you have to place the 10 commandments on public property? How would you like it if a group of Athiests came along and put up a sign that said "There is no god!" right next to it? Where does your bluring of religion and government stop?

You have the right to practice and or not practice whatever belief you want, you don't have any right to force anyone else's tax dollars to pay for it though.

This is just a theocrat's argument hidden in a slew of falsehoods and ignorance. It is an advocation for the violation of my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

You are either insane or ignorant.

Or, perhaps, I've actually read the constitution. Amendment 1 is the only one that mentions religion, and then it only states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This says *nothing* about putting the 10 commandments on public property, or having a nativity scene in the center of a town (another "hot topic" lately), etc.

It was the Baptists and other religious groups who were considered illegal separatists and who fought for this absolute separation.

What they fought for, was no state ordained religion (ie. the church of England).

Would my taxes be used for the upkeep of these postings on public property? What about the economic value of the space being used by the posting? Do my taxes not pay for this also? If I am an athiest, then how is this legally different from my taxes being used to pay a priest's salary?

Puh-lease... "Wah! My taxes paid for something I don't like! Wah!" Ever see some bad art that your taxes paid for? Think there should be a separation of state and art?

How would you like it if a group of Athiests came along and put up a sign that said "There is no god!" right next to it? Where does your bluring of religion and government stop?

I defend christians so I must be one eh? I'm actually agnostic if you *must* know. Feel free to put up your 'there is no god' sign. Or "Allah be with you" or anything else you like.

What you fail to understand, is that the government supporting religions (note: plural), and the government enforcing religions is very different. Athiesm is the "new religion" as far as I can tell. "You must not show religious symbols because I'm Athiest and it offends me!" How is this different from "You must not put up signs saying there is no God because I'm Catholic and it offends me!"?

This is just a theocrat's argument hidden in a slew of falsehoods and ignorance. It is an advocation for the violation of my rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

As stated, I'm agnostic. Hardly a "theocrat." But even assuming this mindless statement is correct, the constitution proveds for freedom *of* religion, not *from* it. You do *not* have the "right" to not see religios icons. In fact, you're much worse at advocating your 'non-religion' than the christians are at advocating their religion.

Show me the *law* that says the 10 commandments must appear on the steps of court-houses and I'll agree with you. Until then, quit yer bitching.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

If you think that simply reading the text of the US Constitution gives you the understanding and context of the authors or the struggles and history that brought them to the conclusions reflected in the text, you're ignorant.

The Baptists didn't simply worry about the COE they also worried about the Puritans who persecuted them as well. Both groups were consisdered renegades by the COE but one the Puritans consisdered themselves reformers of the COE whereas the Baptists were part of the groups that were the Pilgrims and considered themselves Separatists.

Puh-lease... "Wah! My taxes paid for something I don't like! Wah!" Ever see some bad art that your taxes paid for? Think there should be a separation of state and art?

Wow, you've just managed to restate the arguments made against the religion clause in the First Amendment. Go read some fscking history before you come make an ass of yourself in public.

The reason the Pilgrims and Puritans came to colonize N. America is because people were killing each other over the very thing you claim I'm whining about. The wisdom of the Founding Fathers was not to worry about whether or not someone was acting irrational in this regard, but to simply say it was not the business of government and to avoid the problem totally. Reversing this ideal is to invite disention and threatens the peace of this diverse republic, not to mention throwing away the primary American contribution to Western secular law.

Ignoring the rights of minorities in deference to religious majorities is just as theocratic as passing laws that persecute them. You need not believe in God to support theocracy.

You're personal religious persuasion is irrelevant to the debate. The absolutism of the separation of church and state is intended to render such differences null so that we may form a political union and act in public concert regardless of our conscience. The Constitution does very much provide for freedom "from" religion with regards to government property and functions, to say otherwise is historical revisionism.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

If you think that simply reading the text of the US Constitution gives you the understanding and context of the authors or the struggles and history that brought them to the conclusions reflected in the text, you're ignorant.

I've read more than the constitution, but it simply doesn't matter. What was in their minds at the time has no bearing on what the laws of this country are.

Wow, you've just managed to restate the arguments made against the religion clause in the First Amendment. Go read some fscking history before you come make an ass of yourself in public.

No need to be an asshole dude. Sounds like the baptists should have been afraid of the holier-than-thou athiests more than anybody else....

You're personal religious persuasion is irrelevant to the debate.

You're the fucking moron who called me a theocrat!

You still haven't made any useful arguments. You seem to think I don't know history (which is a mistake), and you've only proceeded to insult me. Bleh. What does it matter if I try to discuss my point with yoU?

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

If you knew history you wouldn't make the claims you have, especially without backing them up.

I've read more than the constitution, but it simply doesn't matter. What was in their minds at the time has no bearing on what the laws of this country are.

Not only are you ignorant of Constitutional law, but you're ignorant of law in general. The basis for US law is laid out in the principles and debates that took place before the US as a state was a thought in anyone's mind. The Founding Fathers saw the US as a continuation of liberal traditions that came to fruition in the Enlightenment and have a history going back to Rome.

It's not my fault if you've failed to understand this yet. Your statements show you're lack of knowledge about the specific events in question, as they are opposite from the historical record. The evidence counters you're position yet you've failed to cite anything supporting your views.

You've even managed to confuse the term theocrat. One need not believe in God to believe in theocracy. Your advocacy of blurring the lines between religion and government in this country is support of theocracy, hence making you a theocrat. If you don't like being called one, then reevaluate your position. Either defend it or change it.

If you are so knowledgable, then you might want to use it to defend your position instead of focusing on the fact I've called you on it. Quite frankly, I'm tired of having this debate with American's who can't take the time to understand their own history. This debate should have ended over 200 years ago with the Constitutional Convention. Instead, there are still organizations in this country who think they have some divine mandate to alter the basis of our country. The postion you took is the same position they've tried to use as a populist wedge, confusing the issue, to persue their un-American crusade.

Quite frankly, if you're insulted it's your own damn fault. You shouldn't state a position so forcefully if you're not willing to back it up.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Atzanteol]

At the risk of feeding a troll, I'm replying again...

Quite frankly, I'm tired of having this debate with American's who can't take the time to understand their own history

Nothing like assuming you know more about a complete stranger than you do, eh?

You shouldn't state a position so forcefully if you're not willing to back it up.

Well, lets check out the 'facts' you've used. You've called me names, told me I don't know history, tried to define me as a "theocrat" (to which my friends had a hearty laugh!), insulted me a lot, and even called me un-American!

*blink* IHBT! Damnit...

But that's okay. I'll toss a copy of the Quoran out on the bridge and I'm sure the troll will go away (chanting something about "don't force your religion on me"). HANL.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

This is the best you can do? You've yet to present a single historical fact, while claiming the opposite of what the record presents. The only defense you've provided is a reading of the text of the US Constitution. I'm not about to regurgitate the history of this nation's founding when you can't even muster a single fact supporting your case.

What's the matter, forgot how to use google? I would have expected at least a half assed attempt to trot out the usual list of crap arguments revisionists bring up, but you haven't even provided that.

You call me a troll, yet you've failed to counter a single assertion I made of the historical record, maybe you've missed them and should reread my posts. Remember, this is *your* "huge pet peeve". Appearently, it's not huge enough to back it up with research, which you have yet to do in any post you've made on this thread.

Before you were simply acting ignorant, now it appears you lack the ability to reason, any insults you've been subject to are truly deserved. Since when have fools been suffered lightly on /.? Put up or shut the fsck up.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

This issue always comes down to "this makes me feel uncomfortable."

Incorrect. The 10 Commandments were put up there with taxpayer money. That money is usually decided by laws that inact bonds voted upon for the construction of the building. If it's your own personal chach, fine, but if it's with taxpayer money, it's illegal.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

There are three kinds of people who will vote for Bush:

1. People who are too gullible to realize that Bush has lied.
2. People who enjoy being lied too.
3. People who agree with the lie and who want to continue the lie for their own nefarious purposes.

What kind are you?

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[w3rzr0b0t5]

I'm the third kind.

Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls?

[Anonymous Coward]

If that were true of all christians then we'd have a lot less problems in this world. Unfortunately it's not. Like all religions christianity needs to be interpreted. That's your personal interpretation and I commend you for being even handed and rational about it. But there are many others who aren't quite as reasonable as you.

Commentary

[unixbum]

Posted by pudge on Thursday September 23, @08:32PM from the good-idea dept. Masker writes "This is just too funny. Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois, who is running against Democrat Barack Obama, wants to ban political polling for 'a certain period' before the election, since such polls are 'manipulative and degrading and damaging to our political system.' Could his opinion be influenced by a recent poll that shows Keyes trails by 45 percentage points behind Obama?" Pudge: Could be. But it could also be influenced by the fact that polls are often wrong; they influence how people vote (people are less likely to vote for someone who "doesn't have a chance"), and polls get reported on more than issues, which can't be good for anyone except the pollsters and whoever happens to be leading the polls.

Does anyone else find the fact that almost a third of this post is commentary?

Re:Commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone else find the fact that almost a third of this post is commentary?

Find the fact that a third of it is commentary, what? Find it amusing? Find it odd? Find it strange? Find it arousing? (No, I don't want an answer to that.)

Re:Commentary

[Quinn]

That's a reversal from the commentary usually being in the submission itself, and it all being partisan tripe from a neo-hippy fucktard.

Re:Commentary

[Anonymous Coward]

It's freeperish moderation coordinating with Rovian talking points.

Right wingers surrendering any pretense of true patriotism: a great nation.

Trying to put a positive spin on carpetbagger Keyes: priceless.

I miss the I work at vote vendor X and can say the technology is wonderful posts.

Re:Commentary

[aggiefalcon01]

I do find the fact, yes. I don't mind it, though, as I think Pudge brings up a valid point worth talking about. A "point that matters", if you will. Given the "stuff that matters" mantra of /. , this is fine with me.

Great idea, but...

[I_Love_Pocky!]

What about the first amendment?

Re:Great idea, but...

[identity0]

Well, the 1st Amendment protects you if you just report the results of a poll, but I don't think it protects the act of collecting the data to begin with. There are plenty of laws governing behavior in public, including political behavior like protests, leafleting, etc.

Conducting an accurate survey would require going to a lot of strangers in public or calling them up to ask questions, and that sort of thing tends to be covered under solicitation laws.

Of course, one could still conduct a volunteer survey, but that would be known to be inaccurate, so people might ignore those.

Re:Great idea, but...

[Tailhook]

What about the first amendment?

What about it? It's unconstitutional!

Re:Great idea, but...

[anthony_dipierro]

We've already scrapped the first amendment when it comes to elections.

Anthony DiPierro is responsible for the content of this Slashdot post.

Re:Great idea, but...

[brandonY]

So the first amendment doesn't protect you running a poll in the first place, eh? You can just say anything to anyone. Alright, let's approach this in the nerdy way and do a reduction from that.

I've got myself a list of likely voters. I've polled them in the past, so it's not an unsolicited call if I call them now, since we've done business before. I'm allowed to say anything. I ask Bob how he's gonna vote. He's allowed to say anything. He tells me how he's gonna vote. I'm allowed to write anything. I write one tally on the left side of the paper if it's for Kerry, and one on the right if it's for Bush. I repeat this 100 times. Now, I'm not allowed to conduct a poll, so I don't actually add up these tallies. However, I'm allowed to tell people the contents of the paper, so I'll broadcast that.

Once again freedom is saved from the Republicans! Yay ACLU! Yay Jefferson!

Why stop there

[eyeball]

Ban voting. It also can also affect election outcome. Unless you live in Florida.

Re:Why stop there

[rev_sanchez]

I think polling just before the vote and exit polling are important because of the voting irregularities in Florida and other regions of the country. While poles from Miami/Dade and West Palm probably wouldn't have had any impact on the outcome of the 2000 court battle, it might help to keep future election tampering in check by having more data to compare against the e-vote results.

great idea!

[Tumbleweed]

I'm ALL FOR banning Senate candidates. Excellent!

Oh, wait...

I agree, polls are bad.

[dbcad7]

Sadly, I have seen the effect of polls...

Perot, Dole, Clinton race.. I was working in a small retail store. The owner (my boss) talked for weeks of voting for Perot (after all Perot was a bidnessman)... I watched the store while he went to vote. He came back and blew my mind by stating "I voted for Clinton, because he is going to win anyway" (this is what I call the football game mentality of polls ... he wanted to be a "WINNER")

Of course after that I always thought of him as a real winner ! :)

I firmly beleived polls should be blacked out at some time period before the actual election day

Personaly, I can wait until the next day to find out the results.. .especialy if it encourages people to vote for who they "really" wanted.

regards

dbcad7

He isn't all their

[DAldredge]

This is the same man who thinks that the main purpose of marriage is having kids and that the fact that gays can not have kids is a reason to not allow them to marry. Follow this chain of thought out and you will realize that he appears to believe that unless you can have kids you should not be married.

Re:He isn't all their

[ctr2sprt]

That doesn't logically follow at all. "Main purpose" does not preclude there being other purposes. If there weren't, he'd have no problems with divorce once the first kid is born, and I'm sure he does. Just as most people do.

Furthermore, the intent to have children does not imply an intent to do so immediately. One could get married planning to have children five or however many years down the road. That's still fulfilling the main purpose of marriage by his standard, just not immediately.

Bear in mind that both of these are patently obvious problems with your argument assuming that your premise (i.e. your description of his beliefs) is entirely accurate. Which I very much doubt.

Incidentally, I don't agree with him. But if you're going to argue against his position, you need to (1) argue against his actual position; and (2) make sure your argument isn't as broken as his. I'm not convinced you did either, or in fact made a serious effort to. That suggests that you aren't arguing from reason, but from mindless belief - doubtless one of your purported objections to his beliefs. Consistency is a virtue, though not a perfect one. You should strive to attain it in at least some small measure.

Re:He isn't all their

[DAldredge]

Alan Keyes: "No, the point of the matter is that marriage, as an institution, involves procreation. It is in principle impossible for homosexuals to procreate. Therefore, they cannot marry. It is a simple logical syllogism, and one can wish all one might, but pigs don't fly and we can't change the course of nature."
Mike Signorile: "But one or the other in the couple can procreate. The men can donate their sperm, the women can have babies."

Alan Keyes: "The definition and understanding of marriage is 'the two become one flesh.' In the child, the two transcend their persons and unite together to become a new individual. That can only be done through procreation and conception. It cannot be done by homosexuals."

Mike Signorile: "But what about a heterosexual couple who cannot bear children and then adopt? They are not becoming as one flesh, they are taking someone else's flesh."

Alan Keyes: "And they are adopting the paradigm of family life. But the essence of that family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it is possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism. This is unacceptable."

Mike Signorile: "So Mary Cheney is a selfish hedonist, is that it?"

Alan Keyes: "Of course she is. That goes by definition. Of course she is."

Mike Signorile: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter."

Alan Keyes: "He may or may not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."

Alan Keyes: "By definition, a homosexual engages in the exchange of mutual pleasure. I actually object to the notion that we call it sexual relations because it's nothing of the kind.

Alan Keyes: "It is the mutual pursuit of pleasure through the stimulation of the organs intended for procreation, but it has nothing to do with sexuality because they are of the same sex. And with respect to them, the sexual difference does not exist. They are therefore not having sexual relations."

Re:He isn't all their

[Brandybuck]

Offtopic question time. Prior to a year ago, gay marriage wasn't an issue. Then *boom* the SF Mayor did something controversial and the whole world is calling conservative americans evil nasty fscks for opposing gay marriages. My offtopic question(s) are:

Where were all the pro-gay-marriage politicians before last year? Where were the elected officials scrambling to be the first on the block to have gay marriages? Why is the US the only country being called a primitive throwback for not having gay marriage? What nations had gay marriage last year? This year?

Re:He isn't all their

[DAldredge]

It wasn't an election year then, now it is. The 'regligious' right is treated by the GOP the same way that black people are treated by the Dems, that is they say they will help them while they are running for election then they forget about them till they need votes and money again.

Re:He isn't all their

[Zachary Kessin]

Well then what about a couple in their 60's getting married (say after their first spouses had passed on). Now if they are both past 60 they won't have kids. But it should still be a joyfull occation that they got married and will (we hope) be happy together. Jewish law would definitly aprove of such a match.

Actually some neighbors of mine are in a very similar position. The are both about 60, she was married before with kids, he was not. The have adopted 2 very sweet girls with down syndrom. Which is a wonderful thing, but not something I would want to do.

Re:He isn't all their

[lynx_user_abroad]

Follow this chain of thought out and you will realize that he appears to believe that unless you can have kids you should not be married.

Perhaps we should take this a step further and deny "marriage" to:

• Anyone who hasn't actually had children. (Unless you do have kids you should not be married.)
• Families where the children are not biologically related to both parents (step-parents taxed at the single rate, adopted children don't count, etc.)
• Couples where the children are older than 18 and can no longer be claimed as dependents (since these people are no longer performing the act of "raising their children".)

Of course, if we do that, then we have to start seeing the lack of universal health care for children for what it really is; an assault on the institution of marriage, a "family" tax penalty, and something no upstanding conservative Republican worth his salt would ever stand for.

Re:He isn't all their

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so let's follow the logic to an equally absurd extreme in the other direction. Should a guy be allowed to marry his sister if he gets a vasectomy? Once the genetic dangers of incest have been eliminated, why not let them get married, and adopt kids if they want to?

Re:He isn't all their

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. Thanks. Having these quotes strung together makes Keyes seem to have an evangelical preoccupation with sex. Scary for him and his Party.

Re:He isn't all their

[lynx_user_abroad]

OK, so let's follow the logic to an equally absurd extreme in the other direction. Should a guy be allowed to marry his sister if he gets a vasectomy? Once the genetic dangers of incest have been eliminated, why not let them get married, and adopt kids if they want to?

We're likely to trip-up on the word "marriage" here. As it's used today in the context of this discussion, "marriage" implies a union recognised by the Federal Government for tax and benefit purposes. (Gay's can already get "married" where "married" implies a religiously sanctioned union which is not recognized by Federal Law)

The Federal Government is within it's right (through Law and, in my opinion, in a moral sense) to craft laws and legislation to promote causes where there is a compelling reason to do so.

I believe family values constitutes such a compelling reason. I believe raising children represents another. I believe these two are seperable, meaning I believe there is a compelling reason to promote family values even when no connection to raising children is present, and I believe there is a compelling reason to promote the raising of children even when no connection to a family is present.

So if a pair or group of people shows effectiveness in raising children, their success should be rewarded regardless of their individual races, religions, sexes or biological relationship to one another. As such, I support the work of orphanages, foster homes, grandparents raising their grandchildren, step parents, single parents, people raising a child resulting from an affair with a third party, and people raising adopted children (including Gays.) So, to answer your question, I would approve the Federal Government crafting laws and legislation to assist those engaged in the task of raising a family.

Your question didn't ask it, but I would include in that set a brother/sister pair, regardless of the fertitity of either of the two.

Similarly, I might support Federal Legislation supporting what s been called "family values"; that is, promotion of close bonds between people working together in long-term relationships to offer support, guidance, etc. I'd have to see the details. But in this vein, such a "family unit" wouldn't have to include (or even be intended to eventually include) children of any type. Such a family could consist of two married people, or them and their children, or include adopted children. It would apply even if one parent of the children died (or left through divorce) but only if there were dependent children in the mix. You don't get the benefit if you live alone. And, again, under this definition, a family which loses both parents is still a family, even if there are only two (but at least two) children making up the remaining family unit; even if one is male and the other female, and whether or not the male has had a vasectomy. I don't believe you could exclude polygamy from this benefit. Not unless the Federal Government could show a compelling reason to do so.

Of course, I've been avoiding the term "marriage".

In my opinion, "marriage" is a strictly religious function, and as such, the Federal Government is forbidded from either sanctioning it or outlawing it.

This would mean Gays would be more than welcome to get married, but they'd have to find a religious institution to sanctify the marriage, and they'd gain no Federal benefits simply by having been "blessed".

On the other hand, as soon as they declared themselves "domestic partners", they'd qualify for all the same "family values" benefits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted. And if they chose to adopt a child (or if one of them produced offspring with the biological involvement of some third party) they would qualify for the same "raising children" benefiits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted.

So, to answer your question Should a guy be allowed to marry his sister if he gets a

Re:He isn't all their

[DAldredge]

Those quotes are all from the same interview.

Re:He isn't all their

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddhists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then,
There are those that follow Mohammed,
But I've never been one of them...

I'm a Roman Catholic, and have been since the day I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics,
Is they'll take you as soon as you're warm...

You don't have to be a six-footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on -
You're a Catholic the moment dad came...

because...

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs, on the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill thiers just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is useful, every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine
And mine
And mine

Let the Pagan spill theirs,
O'er mountain, hill and plain,
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed in your neighbourhood.

Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate.

</cue-music>

Now how is Keyes position not in violation of separation of church and state when the state holds no opinion on the purpose of a marriage contract, but only in the rights contained therein and their enforcement? Keyes test of acceptablility is invalid.

Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

is on my permanent .ignore list.

Why anyone takes this loon seriously is mindblowing. This is the guy that called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for moving to New York to run for the Senate and then moved to Illinois to do the same. I guess this is just par for the course for the GOP these days though. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is going to help this guy win against Obama. There's no contest.

As for polls, who cares. It's better than 24/7 coverage of IBM typewriters and 30+ year old war stories.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

The man used to be known for his great oratory skill, even in defense of a fanatically right-wing agenda. In his saner days he would have made a good speech writer for--I dunno, some non-crazy Republican. In fact, when I saw Obama's speech at the convention, it actually reminded me of Keyes. But public speaking was his only skill-he failed twice in a bid for a seat as Maryland's senator. In fact, he's kind of a professional failure, using his Quixotic political campaigns to get attention, then go back to talk radio or whatever. He's ALWAYS hated polls, because he always loses. But there's a glut of people like that in both parties.

He's got a strange kind of intellectual honesty--I believe he's brought up that comparison to Hillary himself several times in his Illinois campaign. He believes what he's saying and always manages to make a fairly convincing argument for it.

It's just too bad that what he says is complete madness. Calling Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner because she loves a woman? It may be a logically consistent point of view, Alan, but it's still a fucking monstrously bigotted point of view. Even though it was clear from the start that Obama would win, I was still excited to here Keyes was going against him. But that excitement turned to sickness when I heard that Cheney sound bite.

1996 Alan Keyes would have been an entertaining nemesis for Obama. He was a social conservative, but he was also rather liberatarian. What was so interesting about him was how his speeches managed to tie that apparent contradictions together into a coherent ideology. He was a smart fellow, and I wish he would have made the same conversion to semi-reasonability that Pat Buchanan has made now that Bush has led Republicans into the seas of madness. But, I should have known, the neoconservative fantasies of the Iraq war are exactly the sort insanity-as-idealism that appeals to him. I hope this campaign is the last we hear of Keyes.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

This is what happens when Americans confuse their culture or morality with the business of the government. It's logically consistent in his own mind, but inconsistent with the founding ideology of the country. Keyes, like Buchanan, believes in a theocratic mythology of America. At least Buchanan realizes that his ideas along this line aren't getting him anywhere and that he gets much more exposure using his intelligence for political analysis. Remember that Buchanan was the one who claimed that the US was in a culture war at the GOP convention, a meme the GOP, and Alan Keyes, have embraced.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what happens when Americans confuse their culture or morality with the business of the government.

Actually, it's you and the above poster that have done that. All the guy said was that Dick Cheney's daughter was a sinner. He didn't say he wanted to lock her up.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Then why does he support federally sponsored discrimination of a secular marriage contract? What business does any American politician have judging who is a sinner? The only interest an American politician should have in judging others is in criminality. What crime has Mary Cheney commited that would preclude her from obtaining such a contract? Whose rights does she violate by obtaining a marriage contract with another woman? What state interest is served through this arbitrary discrimination that would make it valid?

Seems your glass house isn't impervious to stones.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Ummmm....he's running for Senator, not for Preacher. Everything he says is the business of government. The confusion is not ours.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[jvj24601]

It's just too bad that what he says is complete madness. Calling Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner because she loves a woman? It may be a logically consistent point of view, Alan, but it's still a fucking monstrously bigotted point of view.

Heh. If Keyes and Dick Cheney's daughter were alive 100 years ago and were if they were in love, they'd be sinners. Two hundred years ago he might be in chains in a cotton field, and the moral majority would also (like he does) be quoting religion to justify his enslavement.

I equate people who are against gay marriage/rights/etc with those same people who were against the repealing of slavery (mid 1800's, against the idea of women voting (early 1900's), and against the idea of enforcing civil rights (1960's and beyond). One hundred years from now, these homophobes are going to be written into history books as further examples of people who don't respect an individual adult's right to do what they want with other consenting adults.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

This is the guy that called Hillary Clinton a carpetbagger for moving to New York to run for the Senate and then moved to Illinois to do the same.

After being asked keys went to Il (a bad decision on his part but I hope he makes a good go), in addition to being asked he looked at the record of the then unoppoesd Obama who voted for a bill that would let a baby who survives an abortion die on a cold steel table..

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

Calling Dick Cheney's daughter a sinner because she loves a woman? It may be a logically consistent point of view, Alan, but it's still a fucking monstrously bigotted point of view.

No its calling something which is a sin a sin. You may not agree with it but in the Christian faith homosexuality is a sin. And in most faiths we are all sinners, the difference is I dont have (or want) legislation confirming my sin, and I dont want to push my sin on the public schools, courts, or your household.

But that excitement turned to sickness when I heard that Cheney sound bite.

Well Keys is not known for pulling his punches, and the woman is living in sin.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

And why not let polyamory? how about insest? I mean who are they hurting?

Now if I had my way the Government would have *NO* Marrage, its not their place period.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

And that's what's weird about Keyes is that if he were here right now, he would insist that OUR position is equivalent to slavery and segregation. Somehow. I'm not sure how he would, but he would.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[joranbelar]

the record of the then unoppoesd Obama who voted for a bill that would let a baby who survives an abortion die on a cold steel table.

Oh, gee, a cold steel table, huh? Not a room-temperature wood table, though? Someone's getting a little carried away with the tug-at-the-heart-strings imagery, wouldn't you say?

Besides, Alan Keyes eats babies.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

Umm lie on a steel table at room temperature, tell me how wram it feels. The bill allows a baby, viable and outside the womb to die..

Re:Alan Keyes...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you look at the polls, the people of Illinois are not taking him seriously at all.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[plasm4]

Moral clarity? If the baby were to live would the mother get her money back?

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

This is the crap slippery slope falsehood that has been repeated numerous times. Polygamy consistently creates situations where the welfare of the children and women in such a situation falls on the shoulders of the state. Incest is obvious as well since any offspring are almost guaranteed to have genetic problems. We do allow first cousins to marry, so the state only intervenes where the creation of a child in that relationship is tantamount to willful negligence for the welfare of the child.

The courts have repeatedly established state interest in these cases and have upheld laws banning such contracts. As for you second naive statement, it ignores the role of secular marriage contracts in the history of Western Civilization. Marriage, as a secular contract, is not about love or dedication, it's about recognizing a partnership and confers numerous legal rights for two individuals to act as a single party, which is necessary for those living in such a tightly coupled life.

The government does not sanctify any of these relationships in a moral or religious way, it is no different from the perspective of the government than two people entering into any other contract. The contract of marriage is simply a boilerplate contract for a certain type of situation, much as the rights of partnerships have a default set of rules absent additional agreements (prenups in the case of marriage). Just as you can not give up your civil rights when you enter into a contract, the government will not allow you to enter into a contract that will violate the rights of others, such as offspring in the case of incest and polygamy.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

What the fsck does Christian morality have to do with the laws of the United States?
No one is pushing crap on you, that's your own paranoia. No one is demanding that you participate in gay marriage, no one is forcing your church to hold ceremonies for gay couples. Where is there a law that requires a Christian church to marry Muslims? Absent compelling state interest, denying marriage contract rights to millions of couples is arbitrary discrimination.

It's legal to drink alcohol in this country but my Southern Baptist relatives never have, my Muslim friends also abstain. How does my buying a six-pack infringe on their rights? After all, in their opinion, I'm sinning.

In the role of a US Senator, Alan Keyes would have no business discussing sin. He has no authority for his opinion of what is sin and what isn't. 1500 years of Western Civilization, countless wars and misery have led us to the logical conclusion that the liberty of conscience is the dearest. You have no more authority to push your moral worldview on me as I do on you. This liberty is not granted to me in the Constitution, it is guaranteed. If you attempt to push your morality upon me, I have the right to oppose you with violence if necessary. No one is telling you that you may not consider homosexuality a sin, anymore than you have to believe people who worship a diety other than yours will get to heaven. You do have to respect their rights to disagree with you however. Just as you cannot tell a Buddhist that he cannot pray to an idol of Buddha, you cannot deny rights to homosexuals just because you believe it's a sin.

That is the reasoning of the courts, logically consistent with the body of law that preceeded the decision. No state interest was proven in discriminating against homosexuals for secular marriage contracts. We do not make law based on moral or religious basis in this country, we make them based on rights. While the legislature and population may not always follow this principle, the courts are there to remedy the situation. Denying homosexuals the right to the secular contract of marriage violates their equality under the law and in this country we believe in the rule of law.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Cite the bill and the legal opinion that states that the bill would make such an action legal.
I've been hearing this crap from the pro-life movement for years, in every case, it has turned out to be a invalid interpretation of the law. The only reason people repeat it is that they are ignorant of the law. This is no different than Bill Frist or Dennis Hastert claiming that gay marriage would allow bestiality. The only difference is that, as lawmakers, they are expected to not be so ignorant. Perhaps it's just proof that in a democracy, you get the government you deserve. If the ethics commitee's were still working, both would have been censured for these claims at the least.

Once a baby is alive and outside the mother, it has the rights of a citizen conferred upon it. Allowing it to die on a cold table would be murder and no legislation that allowed this would pass the laugh test in a court since it would obviously violate the rights of the new citizen.

The pro-life movement's repitition of these lies would make Geobels proud.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

Incest is obvious as well since any offspring are almost guaranteed to have genetic problems.

But not if the two partners are gay, what if two male cousins or brothers wish to marry? This is why it is not a slippery slope argument, you are in fact redefining marrage so the consiquences of that act need to be considered.

As for you second naive statement, it ignores the role of secular marriage contracts in the history of Western Civilization. Marriage, as a secular contract, is not about love or dedication, it's about recognizing a partnership and confers numerous legal rights for two individuals to act as a single party, which is necessary for those living in such a tightly coupled life.

No it has been about a Man and a Woman to act as a single party, and produce children. If you are going to redefine that part of the societal contract perhaps its time to look at the whole picture.

Just as you can not give up your civil rights when you enter into a contract, the government will not allow you to enter into a contract that will violate the rights of others, such as offspring in the case of incest and polygamy

But as I pointed out above two homosexual brother have no genetic offspring to affect why should they not be allowed to marry? as for polygamy can you show me automatically how it is worse for the kids to be raised in that envirionment (one that kids in other parts of the world are raised in?) or are you just applying your morality to marrage?

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

What the fsck does Christian morality have to do with the laws of the United States?

Well as its the United states there is freedom of (not from) religion, keys is free to say that if he chooses. I was just pointing out that to keys and many millions of other americans it is a sin.

No one is pushing crap on you, that's your own paranoia. After the passage of state law last session mandating diversity field trips and other pro-homosexual school activity, this session's legislature is considering SB. 225, which would require that schools with interscholastic sports teams adopt non-discrimination codes supporting "sexual orientation" as well as "perceived gender," or risk being banned from the California Interscholastic Federation. This reaches into the private school sector, which of course has been the goal of the activists all along. Nothing will satisfy until all of society is supportive of homosexuality. A second bill, SB 257, would force schools to target speech that opposes homosexuality as being discriminatory and equivalent to harassment. (Yea its all in my head)

In the role of a US Senator, Alan Keyes would have no business discussing sin.

Fine then Barney Frank has no right discussing homosexuality. Guess what he does, and Keys has every right to talk as a Christian. Humanism is on par with Christianity in that it is a source from which many people derive their moral code, so if a secular humanist can use their moral compass so can a christian.

No one is telling you that you may not consider homosexuality a sin, anymore than you have to believe people who worship a diety other than yours will get to heaven.

Umm the parent complained that keys called sin a sin, thats kinda saying he has no right to consider it a sin or are you saying as a devout Christian he should either shut up (freedom of speech) or not have the right to run for office unless he renounces his faith?

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

THe story is here http://www.illinoisleader.com/columnists/columnist sview.asp?c=18455 This bill was known as the Born alive act and:

...[T]he words 'person', 'human being', 'child', and 'individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any state of development.

[T]he term 'born alive', with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Obama voted against this bill which would have afforded a baby who survived an abortion attempt rights, meaning that it could not simply be allowed to die without medical intervantion.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Well as its the United states there is freedom of (not from) religion, keys is free to say that if he chooses. I was just pointing out that to keys and many millions of other americans it is a sin.
This has no bearing on US law. It's a personal opinion, Keyes brought it up to bolster his position on US law.

After the passage of state law last session mandating diversity field trips and other pro-homosexual school activity, this session's legislature is considering SB. 225, which would require that schools with interscholastic sports teams adopt non-discrimination codes supporting "sexual orientation" as well as "perceived gender," or risk being banned from the California Interscholastic Federation. This reaches into the private school sector, which of course has been the goal of the activists all along. Nothing will satisfy until all of society is supportive of homosexuality. A second bill, SB 257, would force schools to target speech that opposes homosexuality as being discriminatory and equivalent to harassment. (Yea its all in my head)

Your accusation is utter BS. You want to use public funds (CA Interscholastic Fed., public school trip funds) to discriminate. Nothing will satisfy until homosexuals are equal under the law. You don't have to personally support it.

You have no right to use public funds to discriminate. What makes you think this is an assualt on you? Do homosexual children not deserve equality under the law? No is saying you have to quit believing it is a sin, you're just not allowed to discriminate using tax dollars. The only way private schools would have to follow these laws is if they recieve public funding. It works the same way for Title 9 stuff. The same reasoning you are using was used for segregation before the Civil Rights Act.

Fine then Barney Frank has no right discussing homosexuality. Guess what he does, and Keys has every right to talk as a Christian. Humanism is on par with Christianity in that it is a source from which many people derive their moral code, so if a secular humanist can use their moral compass so can a christian.

Umm the parent complained that keys called sin a sin, thats kinda saying he has no right to consider it a sin or are you saying as a devout Christian he should either shut up (freedom of speech) or not have the right to run for office unless he renounces his faith?

I'm not saying Keyes doesn't have a right to discuss Christianity or Christian values, but Keyes made this comment in the context of a discussion about his opposition to gay marriage. This is part of his morally based rational for denying homosexual couples secular marriage contracts. Your comparison isn't valid since Barney Frank isn't trying to discriminate against Christians because they believe homosexuality is a sin. Keyes was the one who mixed his personal moral compass with the laws of the US. Show me where Barney Frank has tried to use public money to force Christians to believe that homosexuality is not a sin. You're allowed to believe it's a sin all you want, you just can't use tax dollars to enforce your morality based beliefs that violate the principle of equality under the law.

You are trying to force a false dichotomy. Accepting homosexuality in publicly funded institutions is no different than acctepting Buddhists. You have yet to prove otherwise. No one is saying Keyes must renounce his faith, anymore than a Southern Baptist Senator would have to separate his faith from his public duty to vote on alcohol taxation or an appropriations bill for the ATF.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

There is utterly no qualifier of procreation attached to secular marriage contracts, never has been. Attempting to attach one now is wishful thinking, we have never banned infertile couples from marriage contracts. Your slippery slope argument is still based on personal morality. Unless you can prove harm before the fact, the courts and legislature have no right to ban it. Two male cousins would be able to marry just as a male and female cousin may currently marry. Two brothers would not, since equality under the law would not allow it because brother and sister may not marry. The law must be consistent.

As for legal reasons that polygamy is banned, try this.

i have yet to apply my opinion of what is moral or immoral. I only base my arguments on the a logically consistent view of rights. The laws of this country have no opinion of religion or morality. They only have an opinion on the definition and defense of rights. Western Civilization biggest contribution to the world is our secular body of law and the recognization of individual rights. Without that base, we would not be able to reach the level of sophistication that we currently have. I will defend this legacy, which is conferred upon me by the my mere existence, to the death. You, nor any other theocrat, has any right to deny me this, it is my birthright, as it is the birthright of every US citizen. Your ability to think homosexuality will only be protected if you understand that that is a personal decision and do not continue to force it upon our secular legal system. Once you start to violate the rights of others, there will be no social contract to protect your rights. Law is a series of non-agression pacts, banning gay marriage is an assualt on this.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

So because he voted against this Bill, he automatically disagrees with the language you quoted above?

That's a cheap rehtorical trick. Stop it, it's making me laugh. It's the same crap argument the GOP is using to say Kerry always votes against the military even though his voting record when Cheney was Sec. of Defense, followed Cheney's recommendations. It's like saying Kerry doesn't want the soldiers to have body armor because he voted against the version of the 87B bill that passed. Kerry voted for a version that would have paid for the 87B with a tax cut rollback, whereas the version that passed simply borrowed the money.

You are trying to use the same trick against Obama.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

The language was teh bill. SO yes he did in fact vote against calling a baby that survives and abortion a baby. And because of that vote you can thorw the baby in a medical waste bin *legally*.

Dont try to hide by not addressing his vote..

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

I'll let Eric Zorn address Obama's vote. Zorn v. Stanek

From the article you referenced:
An Obama spokesman said the Democrat voted against the abortion legislation because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

I can't find the full quote anywhere, so I cannot say anything more about Obama's position on this issue. I will say that doctors may have a valid concern with the language of the bill. I am not one, so I can't say whether or not there would be cause for their alarm, but I can say that this concern is valid.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

An Obama spokesman said the Democrat voted against the abortion legislation because it included provisions that "would have taken away from doctors their professional judgment when a fetus is viable."

Because the part he was talking about was the language I posted. It said if a baby is breathing, has a heart beat, showns voluntary movemnet, it is considered live born. That is the "choice" being taken away from doctors..

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Until you can find a medical explanation that states such, you're simply speculating. There could be valid concerns on the part of a medical professional, and without that experience, I doubt you or I could make a conclusive determination that the specific language. There are numerous questions about what being alive is, take the current case of Terry Shiavo as an example. The parents say she is not to a state where her expressed wishes of not being a vegatable should be honored vs. the husband, who states that she is that place. Doctors have weighed in on both sides, and the case has hardly been conclusive.

The point at which life starts and ends has hardly been as black and white as you are making it out to be. If it were black and white, these issues would hardly be so controversial and law would have been created that was not vulnerable in the courts.

Re:Alan Keyes...

[N3WBI3]

Well birth seems to be pretty balck and white, or is a premie less 'human' than a baby carried to term?

Re:Alan Keyes...

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You've completely ignored the position I've taken and simply restated your earlier assertion. Try again.

A good idea, done elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

This is already done in many other countries, for a few days or a week before the election. It works well, because (as has been pointed out) polling late in the campaign can seriously distort outcomes. Exit polls in particular bother me.

Something that bothers me more than late polling, though, is starting to count votes and announce results before the election has ended. That happens in the US too. Wake up, check results, go vote.

I'm not in the US, maybe someone can explain how that is a fair system?

Re:A good idea, done elsewhere

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

It's time zones. They start counting votes in the Eastern states when Eastern pools close, and sometimes announce the results before states to the west finish. So if New England was called for Bush, at 20:00 EST, then people still voting at 17:00 in California will know Bush will probably win. This time around, that doesn't seem likely--it's probably gonna be close until polls close in California, and we Easterners will have to wake up Nov. 3 to find out who won. Or sometime in December if it's like 2000.

It sucks, they should wait until all polls are closed to announce exit polls. I'm not sure if they tried to pass a law to that effect--the First Amendment (Free Speech) may not permit such a restriction.

Re:A good idea, done elsewhere

[Sylver Dragon]

Its more than just time zones, a lot of the news programs, in thier desire to create news, will start reporting the results of states where all of the precincts have not yet reported. Heck, in the last election, I remember seeing states results reported for states where less than 50% of the precincts had reported. Usually the news program would have that information printed in barely readable font next to the results. To me, that seems more likely to sway people that pre-election polls. People might decide to either forego voting (out of dispair or confidence), or make people change their vote. Personally, I'd like to see a restriction on voting results, where they cannot be reported until all precincts have closed (including Hawaii) and then only after all precincts within a state have reported. This would have killed some of the drama of the 2000 election, in that we would have had the first tally of every state in before Florida became such a flashpoint. Granted we would have still had the court battles and the eventual questioning of the SCOUTS stopping of recounts, but there wouldn't have been the needless drama.

Re:Barack Osama?

[Keith Russell]

Please, please, somebody tell me that my browser mangled the <sarcasm> tags.

For those who did take that seriosuly, you'll get a good idea of who Barack Obama is by reading the transcript of his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention.

Watch the video!

[EnronHaliburton2004]

I missed his keynote address, but I heard alot about it.

Right now I'm installing a new hard drive on my wife's computer, and am listening/watching
the video.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[div_B]

He came back and blew my mind by stating "I voted for Clinton, because he is going to win anyway" (this is what I call the football game mentality of polls ... he wanted to be a "WINNER")

I fear that this sort of thing is pretty prevalent. It's probably the simplest way to ensure that the candidate you vote for wins (and then feel good about it), and for a lot of 'swing voters', that's probably more important (subconciously at least) than the candidate's policies (given the slightness of the differentiation between the policies of the 2 main candidates anyway).

Ban Polling?

[Polo]

...but they can't do that.

That's the primary way we're going to get CowboyNeal elected!

Kwazy

[Doc Ruby]

Keyes is off his rocker. A carpetbagger from Maryland who vocally criticized Hillary Clinton for moving to NY to run (successfully) for senator. And the Republicans who picked him, to run a black man against the likely first black senator representing Illinois, shows their contempt for democracy, race, the people of Illinois, and sanity. What's worse is the cadre of other actually insane Republicans he fits in with. How much more obvious a charade could they run?

Re:Kwazy

[CodeWanker]

Speaking as a rabid, reactionary, right-wing mega-zealot... Kwazy is right. It's absolutely shameful that Keyes just popped in to have a "Battle of the Darkies" minstrel show. I don't know if it's racist, since I don't know how skin color was supposed to affect this thing one way or the other.

Oh, wait. Now I know... Republicans want to show that they can scrape up a token as well as the democrats can. Okay, so it IS racist... So much for content of your character trumping the color of your skin. Alan Keyes is a major-league non-electable nutball. He's playing this for publicity because the more insanely right-wing religiously-bigoted things he can say, the more his books and radio show appearances sell to his base, his paying audience. So it's a symbiotic relationship, uh, sorta.

The shame of it is the national Republican party could have done a LOT more for REAL racial harmonization of the party by backing Herman Cain here in good old Georgia. I voted for him in the primary because he's the best conservative candidate. He happens to be black. They've set themselves back a fair piece with ol' Alan up there stirring up the yankees.

The first black president will be a conservative Republican...

Re:Kwazy

[Doc Ruby]

Maybe, and he'll be backed by the Republican Party *entirely* to be able to say that the first black president was a Republican. Note that Obama is no token - he's a very popular politician who happens to be black.

Re:Kwazy

[N3WBI3]

and the Republicans who picked him, to run a black man against the likely first black senator representing Illinois, shows their contempt for democracy, race, the people of Illinois, and sanity

Umm what? Wow take some meds..

Ms. Moseley Braun has served her country as a United States Senator from Illinois a Female, African American.

The republicans in Ill were in a hard spot, they needed to get someone with a name to run. Keys was *not* picked because of his race (the previous two attempts including Mike Ditka were white). As for Democracy? what choice did they have the DNC forced the primary winner to release his divorse records (something John Kerry wont do) and the scandle destroyed him.

How much more obvious a charade could they run?

Well you wont get much argument out of me this is a publicity stunt by the republicans in Il there is nobody they could have picked to beat Obama (too little time, money, and luck on their side). So they picked someone who could expose just how wacko left Obama is (this guy vopted to let babies who survive abortion die on a cold steel table). When he runs again in 6 years, assuming he is not a vp candidate in 4 (oh wait starting with Kerry/Edwards one can run for president miss a years worth of votes and keep their seat, at leat Bob Dole had the grace to step down before running) his record will be more an issue..

Re:Kwazy

[CodeWanker]

"Maybe, and he'll be backed by the Republican Party *entirely* to be able to say that the first black president was a Republican."

Ow! You wound me, Sir. I can assure the Republicans will back him only if they feel confident he can win the election. So it WON'T be Keyes. And if they pick the winning candiate and that candidate is black, that by definition makes him the best candidate regardless of skin color. No?

The last time Keyes ran for president, he got himself arrested here in Atlanta for trying to crash a debate he was excluded from because of his poor performance in the primaries up to that point. Result: A nice talk radio/commentator/columnist career. So his senate run in Illinois means that he uses "Reporting for duty!" *almost* as cynically as Kerry does.

Polls are very frustrating

[arkham6]

I have to stop looking at polls since they seem to inaccurate, and sometimes outright biased. Some sites, like www.electoral-vote.com will show Kerry leading by 30 votes in the electoral college one day, the next show him down 50. Obviously this isnt really happening, so something must be flawed.

OTher times, you see three different polls being about the same number, ie bush 47, Kerry 46, then one guy who's just out there, like Bush 65, kerry 32. Er...huh?

Then you get the poll companies that are part of the various political party. The repub's have one I know of, I bet the dems have one too.

Yes, I did find that

[billybob]

Does anyone else find the fact that almost a third of this post is commentary?

Yes, in fact, I did find the fact that almost a third (actually almost half) of the post was commentary. And...? :)

Re:Article text (in case of /.'ing)

[EightMillion]

"I represent something people have longed for in Illinois politics for a long time," Keyes said. "I bring the residents of Illinois a long, thick cock. I am raising the banner of Christian priorities and moral priorities at all costs.

Anyone else notice that? I for some reason don't think that was in the original text.

NOT THE ORIGINAL TEXT

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey funny guy, don't edit the text:

"I represent something people have longed for in Illinois politics for a long time," Keyes said. "I bring the residents of Illinois a long, thick cock. I am raising the banner of Christian priorities and moral priorities at all costs. And I am fighting everyday against people who say, 'You can't win that way. You can't be talking about this. You've got to stop talking about abortion. You've got to stop talking about gay marriage. You've got to stop talking about all these moral issues.'"

What Mr. Keyes actually said was, "banner of moral priorities". Don't try and put words in his mouth!

Mr. Keyes brings Illinois a fresh moral perspective, as well as a really big african-american penis, and you don't have to "pigeonhole" the guy.

As Ice-T said...

[DAldredge]

Freedom of Speech, that's some motherfuckin' bullshit
You say the wrong thing, they'll lock your ass up quick
The FCC says "Profanity - No Airplay"?
They can suck my dick while I take a shit all day
Think I give a fuck about some silly bitch named Gore?
Yo PMRC, here we go, raw
Yo Tip, what's the matter? You ain't gettin' no dick?
You're bitchin' about rock'n'roll, that's censorship, dumb bitch
The Constitution says we all got a right to speak
Say what we want Tip, your argument is weak
Censor records, TV, school books too
And who decides what's right to hear? You?
Hey PMRC, you stupid fuckin' assholes
The sticker on the record is what makes 'em sell gold
Can't you see, you alcoholic idiots
The more you try to suppress us, the larger we get

[Verse 2]

Continues: http://www.lyricstime.com/lyrics/3426.html

Re:Barack Osama?

[DAldredge]

excerpt from his DNC speech:"...There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America..."

-0-

Does that mean that he will not be a member of the (using NAACP logic) racist Congressional Black Cacus?

A few things to know about Alan Keys

[jmitchel!jmitchel.co]

1> As every one has so astutely pointed out, Alan Keys is a crank.
2> At no point in the race did Alan Keys have any chance of winning the election.
3> Alan Keys is a part a plan of either the old-line republicans to shame the fundamentalist wing of the party, or a plan by the fundamentalists to take over the republican party.
4> Alan Keys' publicly announce strategy to win this election is to say absurd and offensive things in hope of getting media coverage. Good job guys!

bah

[elmegil]

Keyes is the Jerry Springer of politics. He's an idiot and he's an asshole. He's stated his intention to make one outrageous statement a day until the election, and I suppose this is one of the more recent ones (to go along with his commentary about Mary Cheney "misusing her genitals", etc).

Why he even agreed to enter this race is amazing, and the fact that the state Republican Party saw fit to pull him instead of the number two Primary winner (after Jack Ryan's campaign imploded over relatively irrelevant allegations from a contentious divorce) is a mystery to those of us who live here. The #2 guy was Jim Oberwies, a well known (in Chicagoland anyway) conservative dairy owner, who was a completely viable candidate--easily with more connection to the residents of Illinois than Keyes, and easily conservative enough to be electable with the more conservative downstate electorate.

All Keyes entry does is prove that all the negative rhetoric about Hillary not really being from NY is just so much hot air on the part of the GOP. He's clearly going to lose, and I can't think of any of the republicans I know here who want to vote for him given his public record as a lunatic and a jerk. Being behind 45 points in the polls is probably accurate given the distaste for the man here, regardless of the accuracy of polls in general.

Re:bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you could say that Jerry Springer is the Jerry Springer of politics. He was mayor of Cincinatti until he was arrested for soliciting prostitution. He got caught by paying with a check. He was also considering running for Senate last year.

Re:bah

[dagoalieman]

I find it rather funny, actually, that he's so hated by ALL partys- including the one whose ticket he is running on.

Part of me wonders, though, if Keyes isn't running in Illinois to get the Democrats who supported Hillary to realize what a bad idea that was (She won, so obviously she did something right, but the question remains can she represent a state that she knows nearly nothing of remains). And then make an honest push on creating some residency laws...

I've seen some pretty hideous quotes from Keyes this race, and I find it hard to say that he's actually trying.

More on topic to the original post- I agree about banning polling, especially exit polling, but I would like to see the implementation before it's used. The concept walks a line of censorship/1st amendment rights along with the concept of prohibiting public behavior (one's allowed, one's not.) If anything, polls can encourage fraud if they don't actually impact the results. I'm not saying that it DOES cause that.. but the extra polls can cause action or inaction on both sides of the coin.

I could care less...

[epcraig]

There must be a way for somebody who doesn't live in Illinois and cheerfully lies to pollsters could care less, but I can't say it matters.

Keyes

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Is a buffoon and a loony.

He will go far as a Republican.

In Oregon politics, polls are fairly meaningless

[Anonymous Freak]

Oregon has all elections done by mail. All ballots are due in the elections offices by 8 PM on election day. (So 'absentee' ballots must ARRIVE by election time, unlike in most states, where absentee ballots can pour in over the course of a couple weeks AFTER election day.)

In a recent primary, the position of Mayor of Portland was up. There were a ridiculous number of candidates, many serious, a lot more not. In the Portland mayoral race, if one candidate wins by enough of a margin at the primary, he automatically wins. One city council member was expected to win by a large enough margin to win outright. A relatively unknown (in the press) candidate won enough votes to force a two-man runoff in November. And now he challenger looks seriously like he might win. (Again, based on the same polls that showed him behind by a large margin, even on election day.)

Ah...many countries actually do this

[Nice2Cats]

This is just too funny.

Sorry to distrub your editorializing here, but there are in fact quite a number of countries that do this. Other things more modern democracies have found out work pretty well are not announcing any election results until everybody's vote is in (aw, the Californian says, why go vote, Gore is going to win anyway); vote on a Sunday so people don't have to skip work; give everybody the same ballot sheet; give every person one vote instead of some screwy system with a bunch of middlemen who distort the effect of the popular vote.

As with the legal system and electricity, America's electorial system suffers enormously from being one of the first ones implemented and the inability of Congress to pass any serious reforms. Get rid of trial by jury, switch to 220 volts, make it a direct vote, and then you will be ready to enter the 21. Century. Computers that run with 220 volts are twice as fast!

Re:Ah...many countries actually do this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to distrub your editorializing here, but there are in fact quite a number of countries that do this.

The fact that other countries do it doesn't make it any less funny.

Other things more modern democracies have found out work pretty well are not announcing any election results until everybody's vote is in (aw, the Californian says, why go vote, Gore is going to win anyway)

Huh? Gore did win California, and it was by way more than one vote.

vote on a Sunday so people don't have to skip work

Combined, I guess, with mandating that people not work on Sunday. I guess that's fine once you've mandated a particular subset of Christianity.

give everybody the same ballot sheet

Including the blind I suppose.

give every person one vote instead of some screwy system with a bunch of middlemen who distort the effect of the popular vote

That's probably how they wound up with a state religion in the first place. Just give 51% of the people whatever they want.

Re:Ah...many countries actually do this

[tetranz]

A bit off the original topic but ...

In New Zealand we have a law which, although I don't know the wording, it basically says 'no politics on election day'. All billboards must be removed by midnight before the day. If nothing else, it avoids them becoming trash blowing around for weeks as I've noticed happening in the US. Exit polling is not allowed and the news media can't say anything political until the polls close except to comment on turnout etc. Volunteers working for parties helping old people etc get to a polling place can have coloured ribbons on their cars but that's all, no party or candidate names. No votes are counted until all polls are closed. Admittedly that's easier with only one timezone.

I think its all good. The last minute begging for votes from american candidates moving west seems somewhat uncivilised. Surely election day is finally a time for the candidates to shutup and let the people have their say.

And ...

It doesn't matter what crime you've committed in the past, you never lose the right to vote. I heard a report on NPR recently about ex-felons not being allowed to vote in the US. Its a controversal subject but quite significant in some geographic and demographic groups.

Proportional representation means that third parties really do count and spoilers don't.

Permanent resident non-citizens can vote.

Re:Ah...many countries actually do this

[Masker]

Sorry to distrub your editorializing here ...

I submitted the story. I'm not a Slashdot editor. How could I be editorializing?

I find it very funny that he would be against polls, because it would be a huge loss & against the 1st amendment of the constitution to ban polling.

Why a loss? Well, polls gather informatino on not just who you're going to vote for, but what issues are important to you, and how you feel a candidate represents their stance on an issue. This kind of feedback is very important in gauging the effects of how you're getting your message out, and what issues you need to come out with clear information about.

If polls influence elections (especially for weeks before the election) and should be banned, then so should all political ads. By everyone. They are frequently filled with lies, distortions and misrepresentations of out-of-context information, and unduly influence elections. </sarcasm>

someone wanted to organize a vote on that issue

[dario_moreno]

but gave up because the polls showed that the bill would not pass.

Please don't vote

[hph]

It only encourages them. ;-)

Polls are all BS anyway.

[Temporal]

As I have learned since I started paying attention to electoral-vote.com, most polls are BS. For example, two different polls recently conducted in Wisconsin show Kerry getting 50% and 38% of the vote. The polls don't even have overlapping margins of error. Therefore, at least one of them is simply dead wrong. Similar polls have been popping up all over the map, even from "trusted" sources like Gallup. If it's so easy for polls to be so wrong, why should we trust any of them?

Re:Polls are all BS anyway.

[Anonymous Coward]

I asked Gallup if they really excluded cell phones in their sampling - this was the reply I got back :
The research we have done and learned about at professional meetings
suggest that the vast majority of people who use a cell phone also have a
land line phone. The estimates of cell phone only households is in the
2-3% range. So 96-97% of Americans have land line phones (some small
percentage does not have a cell phone or a land line phone), and thus
are included in our samples.

The research also indicates that people with only a cell phone have
generally similar attitudes to those with a land line phone. That small
percentage of cell phone only people would have to be dramatically
different from land line phone people to even move our numbers a fraction of
a point.

Nevertheless, we continue to monitor the growing trend toward
cell-phone only usage, and as the practice becomes more widespread (and we see
differences in attitudes between cell-phone only and landline), it may
become necessary to adjust our sampling procedures to account for that.

Re:Polls are all BS anyway.

[Temporal]

They can't poll cell phones. It's illegal to use any automated dialing system to call a cell phone, or any other phone where the callee will have to pay for the call. (If a telemarketer calls your cell phone, press charges!)

That's not why the Gallup polls are screwed up, though. The Gallup polls are screwed up because they normalize for a population that is 40% Republican and 33% Democrat. Considering that the percentages were the opposite in the last two elections, this seems like a pretty big assumption on Gallup's part.

More detail on both the cell phone issue and Gallup's strange assumptions can be found in the september 18th writeup at electoral-vote.com.

I love how the presses over-react to polls

[antifoidulus]

From week to week, you will have a change in the polls that is within the margin of error for the presidential race. Then of course, because the media has nothing better to do, they will report that this must mean the Kerry campaign is stalling or that Bush obviously has lost touch etc. Whatever story they can pull out of their ass for explaining why 10 more people out of the 1000 randomly selected picked candidate X instead of candidate Y in the latest poll.
The polls are worthless, but since most Americans don't know jack about Stat., the media can manipulate them to suit their sensationalist agenda.

Sigh..

[genrader]

I feel bad for Keyes. I'm surprised he wants to do something like this O_o But on the otherhand, Obama has gotten himself in a good position. I bet Keyes would win in a landslide if people realized Obama has tried and I think has gotten passed a bill that allows live-birth abortions (Mom has baby, says OKAY I DONT WANT IT ANYMORE LOLOLOL, and thirty minute old baby gets its brain sucked out). Obama openly supports it, but he isn't going to be telling anyone until after he's elected.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[dpilot]

What's bad is our system of voting.

Maybe he really didn't want to vote for the winner, maybe he just didn't want Dole in the office. In that sense, he may have felt that a vote for Perot was a vote for Dole, because it took away from Clinton. Just like in 2000 a vote for Nader was ironically a vote for Bush.

We need a more sophisticated voting scheme, which has often been a topic on /. There has been at least one try in recent Vermont history to get Instant Runoff, though it failed. The Progressives are a strong third party in Vermont, and the Libertarians have a presence, too. Perhaps an 'unholy alliance' between these two could get Instant Runoff through. I would think in this matter, the Democrats might join in, because normally Progressive votes take from them.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[ivan256]

Just like in 2000 a vote for Nader was ironically a vote for Bush.


People keep saying this, but the math doesn't work out. At best, it's a half a vote. If the person had *actually* voted for either Bush or Gore, not only would one of the two have lost a vote, but the other would have gained a vote. And that's before you get into what percentage of people who vote for a third party candidate wouldn't have voted at all if that candidate hadn't run.

I think he's right, mostly.

[Asprin]

I think Keyes is right about this mostly. Besides if the media weren't spending all their time trying to manufacture news via polls, maybe the'yd have a few extra minutes to check some facts or locate confirming sources of information.

They (the media) are forgetting how to do the one thing that really separates them as a legitimate news source from the tabloids and bloggers, and I think the introduction of manufactured news sources like political polls are partly to blame.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[ivan256]

Just like in 2000 a vote for Nader was ironically a vote for Bush.


Oh I forgot to mention...

Unlike what you're implying, what's truly ironic about that situation is that instead of strengthening a third party and pushing policy that isn't aligned with either of the two major parties in a way similar to what Perot did, Nader's run in 2000 convinced a bunch of people that it's better to vote for a mediocre candidate and compromise your beliefs in certain issues than to express your views.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[dpilot]

That's why I suggest that what we really need for alternative parties to grow is an alternative voting scheme. That way, even though you think it highly likely that one of the two major party candidates will win, you can vote for the alternative party without it acting like an effective vote for the major party you candidate you dislike more.

There are many alternative voting schemes, and they've been discussed on /. before. The difficulty is getting them into use, because the two major parties both have a vested interest in the current voting scheme. But the method of voting is left up to each state, so it may be possible to see the camel's nose under then tent in places like Vermont or the midwest state where they're contemplating splitting their electoral votes.

It's not the polls, but the media...

[jbarr]

The pre-election polls themselves are really not the problem--it's how the media spins...er...reports the results. While it would certainly have immense First and Second Amendment Rights implications, I would really like to see a complete campaign-related media blackout for the entire week leading up to and including election day. Then, once the voting is closed, lift the blackout and let the media report the returns. Obviously, you really can't blackout the Internet, but you could blackout TV, Radio, and Newspaper/Magazine media.

84% should be 95%

[crow]

If the polls were accurate, you would expect 95% of the polls to be within their margin of error, because that's the definition of the margin--it's a statistical probability that, given a true random sample, there is a 95% chance that the actual value is within that margin.

What this shows is that 11% of polls are flawed.

A Republican response...

[DesScorp]

I'm a Republican, and let me say this about Keyes running in Illinois: it's hypocritical in the extreme. Hillary shouldn't have been allowed to run in New York, and Keyes shouldn't have been allowed to run in Illinois. The very concept of a famous person moving to a place just because they think they can win a race stinks. It's basically giving a big backhand to the idea of representative democracy.

When all is said and done, I think that overall, the GOP will win big this year. But when you ask party leaders what they'd do differently, in private they'll tell you that importing Keyes was a huge fuckup, and will likely hurt them in Illinois for years (a state with a not-insignificant 21 electoral votes). Maybe Barrack Obama was going to win no matter who ran against him. But something about the mindset of the GOP in Illinois really bugs me. When Ryan backed out of the race, and Ditka wouldn't run, there was this assumption that since the Dem's were running a black candidate, hey, we have to have a black candidate too. That's stupid thinking number one; just get a good candidate, color or sex not being part of it. Stupid thinking number two comes in when they've decided that they HAVE to have a black candidate, and we've found this woman that's a doctor, and a loyal republican, longtime resident of Illinois. BUT WAIT......Let's bring in Alan Keyes instead! Never mind that he's never LIVED in Illinois before.

Put this one into the "what not to do" section of campaigning.

Re:A Republican response...

[uujjj]

By the way, the woman doctor (Barthwell, I think) was also black, and no one had ever heard of her, either.

Re:A Republican response...

[Quarters]

Why shouldn't Hillary have been allowed to run? She purchased a house in NY and moved there a full month before she announced her intentions. Keyes doesn't live in IL, says he won't move to IL, and doesn't own land in IL.

Comparing Hillary to Keyes is an apples-to-oranges comparison. One of them did it right. The other one is a hypocrite for doing exactly what he spoke out against two years ago.

Mod Parent Up!

[N3WBI3]

Mod Parent UP! Even the first generation of US leaders had a prayer before they met. The second generation put the 10 commandments on the wlls of the supreme court..

This is not the establishment of religion (ala the Church of England). And this in no way restricted the rights of anyone to practice their religion!

There is another Senate Candidate in Illinois

[JohnnyX]

Jerry Kohn is running as a Libertarian. Last I checked, he didn't want to ban polling and he actually shows up for debates, something neither Obama or Keyes seem willing to do.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...let Badnarik debate...

Ban exit polling

[Procrastin8er]

I think the only polling that should be banned is exit polling. Media outlets that announce exit polling results prior to even a majority of the votes being counted are not helping the democratic process. They could be keeping some voters away from the polls if they think their vote will not affect the election, when in reality it could. We need more people, in the US, to come out and vote. We need to discourage activities that keep people from voting. All election results should be held until they are considered final.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[b-baggins]

No, what you need are the third party candidates building a party infrastructure from the ground up instead of doing an all or nothing crapshoot for the presidency.

If you want a Libertarian president, then get significant number of libertarians onto city councils, into state legislatures and into governorships. Once you have your third party entrenched at the LOCAL level, then you have a shot at the national level.

Can we also ban....

[Anonymous Coward]

Cable News coverage?

I mean the [cable] news media is bias on 2 fronts:

• 1. promote their corporate sponsored candidate or audience.
• 2. only report things that are simple to understand and report, i.e. whatever story requires less work involvement but maximizes viewership.

I think because polls are simple to report and the current administration posts simple explanations and buzzstories (which are simple to report, though few) is the reason why we see more coverage on that stuff than real stories/issues/analysis/op-eds. No one cares about details nowadays and hence polls are the hot thing currently. As for Alan Keyes, it appearing he's against everything...

Validity of Polls Depends on When They are Taken

[reporter]

The validity of polls in predicting the outcome of an election depends on when they are taken. If a poll were done 1 year before the date of the election, then the polls would be meaningless. If the poll were conducted 2 days before the election, then the polls would accurately predict the outcome of the election.

Should we ban polls for a period of time before the election? The answer is "no". Such a ban violates freedom of the press.

If we Americans are so simple minded as to do the following, then we deserve the negative consequences.

1. I vote based solely on what the polls say. For example, if my preferred candidate is winning, then I do not bother to vote.
2. I never vote for the 3rd party candidate because a vote for her is a vote for the opponent.

By the way, Taiwan does ban polls for a period before the election. Taiwan is also the place where the military and political parties own television stations, radio stations, and newspapers. Do we really want to model ourselves after backward Chinese society?

Re:Barack Osama?

[N3WBI3]

What? Look at what a politican says to know who they are?!?!?! Lookt at the voting record of the man...

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[dpilot]

There are Progressives pretty well entrenched at the City level, and some penetration at the state level. But I don't even know if there is a national-level Progressive party affiliated.

Why don't you want to change the voting scheme? I'd like to get rid of the need for 'strategic' voting, and express my true will.

He wasn't the RNC's choice...

[the_skywise]

The RNC's choice, Jack Ryan, who was winning in the polls and looked like a shoo-in candidate, took himself out of the race when the Democrats demanded that a US court reveal, and the US court AGREED to, his sealed divorce records which showed that he liked going to swingers clubs.

Then, right after that, it was "Obama, Obama, Obama" who had been running there all along but had no chance of winning. No RNC member wanted to run after that dirty tricks campaign until Keyes stepped in. At which point it was better him than nobody.

Re:He wasn't the RNC's choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ryan was getting trounced in the polls. It wasn't embarassingly bad, but Obama was still the clear favorite. Don't try to change history.

Re:He wasn't the RNC's choice...

[rosie_bhjp]

yeah ryan was kicking his ass all over the place!

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Illinois_Senate_ Ma y.htm

Re:He wasn't the RNC's choice...

[EnronHaliburton2004]

who was winning in the polls and looked like a shoo-in candidate,

Are you intentionally trying to mislead people?

Look, it's not very hard to show that Obama was ahead of Ryan in the polls. Go to Google. Search for "Obama Ryan Poll. At best, Ryan sometimes held a slight lead over Obama, but Ryan was never, ever a
"shoo-in candidate".

Ryan took himself out of the race because he was losing at the polls, because he's yet another Republican hypocrite who tries to force his morality on other people.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[b-baggins]

Oh, I'd love to change the franchise so that you lose it if you take any taxpayer money.

That won't happen either.

I tend to limit myself to workable solutions. Getting your third-party into local offices and working up to the national level is a workable solution.

Progressives are not a political party. Libertarian, Green, American, etc. are political parties. Progressives are liberal socialists/comunists who don't have the backbone to say as much.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[dpilot]

In Vermont the Progressives are a party. Whether or not they're liberal socialists/communists or not, the act like a political party, file the papers, and hold significant offices *as* a political party.

Maybe not other places.

(I don't think I've ever voted for one, but I can observe.)

Keyes has always called the polls phoney

[Anonymous Coward]

This position is consistent with Alan Keyes.
Back in the 2000 election whenever he was presented a poll, he stated that he never listens to the "phoney polls".

You can volunteer an answer

[mec]

When I get polled, it goes like this:

"If the election were held today, would you vote for $DEM or $REP ?"
"I would vote for $LIB"
"If the only candidates were $DEM and $REP, which one would you vote for?"
"I would vote for $LIB"

Many polls will add a column marked $LIB (volunteered). Of course, you might want to say $GREEN or "Nader" instead, whatever you want.

Re:You can volunteer an answer

[Unordained]

When it's an automatically-dialed phone poll with touch-tone answering and two choices each time ... that gets harder.

Tried and Failed

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried this in Canada by implementing a ban on publishing polls 48 hours before the election, and not allowing Media stations to report on election results before all polls across the Country closed (4 Time Zones - 4.5 in Newfoundland)

But, a provincial judge found the ban unconstitutional and struck down the law. Our most recent federal elections was a free-for-all, but it still didn't make much difference in the final results due to Ontario's urban population.

As nutty as Keyes is...

[indros13]

...he's right about polling. Here's a few reasons why:

1. Polling drives news. Instead of reporting on Kerry's health care plan or Bush's plan for Iraq, we get a race. "Kerry rounds the third turn, pulling ahead because of this, Bush is lagging because of this." Except that none of the talking heads can prove that they know why anything has changed, so it's all a farce.
2. Polling is pointless. What the heck does a poll 2 weeks, 2 months, or 2 years early even mean? "If the election was today, who would you vote for." It's not today, so why ask? It's also meaningless to say anyone is "ahead" until the race starts, which is when votes start being cast.
3. Polling is inaccurate. Now that people have cell phones, polling is rapidly losing its statistical significance. Polling depends on the sample being proportionately similar to the actual population. If cell phone users are not identical to non-cell users in their political preferences, then polls are wrong.

Polls are a way to make a good story out of campaigns that are way too long. If I actually got the information I needed about the candidates' record and proposals (with facts, not spin), I could choose in a day (and many people wait until the last day anyway). Polls are pointless.

What 'The Economist' Says About Keyes.

[tid242]

The politics of tokenism
Aug 12th 2004
From The Economist print edition

The Republicans have made a bad mistake in pitting Alan Keyes against Barack Obama

THREE weeks ago in Boston, the Democrats witnessed the birth of a new black star in Barack Obama, their candidate for the open Senate seat in Illinois. Now the Republicans have conjured up a black star of their own to do battle with the self-described skinny guy with an odd name. Alan Keyes, talk-show host, holy-roller social conservative, Maryland resident and sometime presidential candidate, will take Mr Obama on.

The thinking behind this is beguiling in its simplicity: the Democrats have a black man who can give a rafter-raising speech, so we had better find a rafter-raising black man too. Beguiling, but stupid. Mr Keyes's Senate run will produce nothing but disaster--humiliation for Mr Keyes, more pie on the face of the already pie-covered Illinois Republican Party, and yet another setback for Republican efforts to woo minority voters.

Mr Keyes's problems start with his personality. The Republicans' new champion is the very opposite of cool. In 1996 he chained himself to the front door of a television station in Atlanta, Georgia, to protest against a decision to exclude him from a presidential debate (he was then mounting the first of his two bids for the presidency). His speeches can certainly be eloquent. But they can also be intemperate and plain weird, particularly on the subject of gays.

Mr Keyes's politics are of a piece with his personality. He is a genuine intellectual, a disciple of the great Allan Bloom, and has a PhD in political science from Harvard. But his intellectualism drives him to take absolutist positions on some of the most divisive subjects in American politics. He doesn't just call for a reduction of taxes; he calls for the complete abolition of the "slave" income tax. He doesn't just want to blur the line between church and state like George Bush; he argues that the division between church and state has no basis in the constitution. He doesn't just disagree with Mr Obama on abortion; he castigates him for holding "the slaveholder's position" on the subject.

This sort of absolutism doesn't go down well anywhere in America outside an eccentric fringe. But it goes down particularly badly in the meat-and-potatoes mid-west, where people expect politicians to solve real problems--as the Daleys have done so spectacularly in Chicago, perhaps America's best-run city--rather than waffle on about the meaning of the constitution. The Republicans who have flourished in the region have been middle-of-the-road pragmatists such as Jim Edgar and James Thompson, both former governors of Illinois.

This is hardly an auspicious start. But Mr Keyes brings two further disadvantages to his late-term Senate bid. The first is the charge of "carpetbagging". Illinois is the sort of state where politicians are expected to cultivate their constituencies for years, and where people reminisce about the Cook County political machine's legendary operating style in Chicago in the 1960s. The Democrats are cheerfully claiming that the Republicans are so bereft of talent in a state of 12.5m people that they have to go to Maryland to find any. And they are gleefully reminding everyone of Mr Keyes's pompous scolding of Hillary Clinton, on Fox News in 2000, for running for the Senate in "a state she doesn't even live in".

The Keyes candidacy also smacks of tokenism. The candidate routinely denounces affirmative action as a form of racial discrimination. But what other than racial discrimination can explain the Illinois Republican Party's decision to shortlist two blacks for the Illinois slot--and eventually to choose Mr Keyes? He brings no powerful backers or deep pockets, and was thrashed in his two runs for the Senate in Maryland.

Desperate measures

The Illinois Republicans are not just guilty of tokenism. They are guilty of last-minute scraping-the-bottom-of-the-barrel t

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[Lehk228]

the problem is that the current system forces the two major parties to adopt positions from minor parties in order to not lose votes to that party, with a runoff or "choose as many as you like" parties are most succesasful when they remain static.

Cell Phones

[svenvder]

I forget the guys name but im pretty sure hes a big wig for gallup. Anyway according to him polling is going to become more and more scewed because of the cell phone. More and more young people are using cell phones instead of land lines. Thus the typical method of just selecting a random group of phone numbers will become more scewed because the younger voters wont be included.

Re:I agree, polls are bad.

[dpilot]

But what typically seems to happen is that parties move toward the center as they campaign, then move back after elected. Don't have a Democratic example at the moment, (more later) but look at all of the moderates the Republicans trotted out at their covention. During the 2000 campaign, Bush was a 'uniter, not a divider' and a 'compassionate conservative'. But the Republicans have run things as if they have a mandate, since.

(more later) Others have said it. The United States is all pretty far to the right. I suspect the Democrats are just slightly left of center, and that their current politics resemble more closely Republican politics of the 60s and 70s.

To the oxycodone ditto heads

[slashdot_commentator]

If there is any confusion as to why Keyes is >40% down in the polls, all they need to do is download and watch his interview on an Illinois local news show.

Speaking as a lefty NY liberal, I have nothing but sympathy for the Illinois Republican Party.

Ban Push Polling

[mwaddell]

What's more important than banning polling just before an election is banning Push Polling completely!

What is a poll?

[nullportal]

The legal question of greatest relevance in Mr. Keyes proposal to ban polling under some circumstances is this: What is a "poll"? If I ask myself what my own opinions are and then announce them, have I conducted a poll? Have I conducted a poll if I ask one other person to join with me in making a public endorsement and publishing it? The activity of quantifying opinion begins with the first significant quantity - which I suggest is "1".

that's strange

[Anonymous Coward]

I respected Keyes until I read that headline. I guess there really is no difference between the two parties.